(Updated below) Intel has announced it won't release a 0.18 Xeon at 2GHz (the so-called Foster core). Instead, it will wait the three months or so required to bring a 0.13 Xeon at 2GHz into existence (based on the newer Prestonia core). Intel was supposed to have released a 2GHz Foster Xeon in late August. It is now approaching late September and no product yet. As a result, this news shouldn't come as a surprise to most. Intel has decided to quietly not announce its non-release, and instead wait for the upcoming 0.13 micron revision to announce it. Personally, I think they couldn't get the chip to work properly at 0.18 microns due to thermal issues. Why else would they delay?Rob Note: But how is Foster that much different than the P4 at this point? They are basically the same chip. Maybe Intel just noticed that AMD isn't going to slap PR ratings onto their AthlonMPs and they will only get to 1.53GHz in the near future, so Intel is in no rush. Or maybe that 400MHz system bus is tricky to get working with two chips at higher speeds.UPDATE: The newest appears to be that there will be a 2GHz Foster for workstations, just not for servers–i.e., the large cache 2GHz Foster Xeons will not exist. The reason given is because it takes a long time to validate server chips, and if Intel is moving to Prestonia in a few months it's just not a good idea to start validating Foster chips that have a short lifespan.

USER COMMENTS 3 comment(s)

Nudging toward McKinley? (5:32pm EST Thu Sep 20 2001)It's pretty obvious that Intel's not worried about their server line as they haven't released anything since 5/2000(except the 900Mhz they botched and recalled). They could be going much more agressively against low end Sun, IBM & HP with price/performance if they wanted.

I wonder if they're worried about dulling the release of McKinley Itaniums. They'll have higher profits on those, and they're probably still need to convince HP/Compaq to move agressively with them.

Hope AMD gets Intel running scared on Servers. Otherwise I wouldn't be surprised to see more delays. – by Josha

And just when you thought it was safe…(6:12pm EST Thu Sep 20 2001)intel screwed up, and my how right you were.Whats the point of this xeon stuff? Even itanium, both need to be faster. a 2ghz isn't that good… yet… from inte… – by Logical Computers

smart step!(6:27pm EST Thu Sep 20 2001)Now intel can focus on norhwood ! as if a 18 microns cpu will be needed on a xeon but a 13micron will work very well for them – by just what to tell U